ivth international wildlife management congress · 2019. 6. 3. · wildlife monographs: eric...

IVth International Wildlife Management Congress

Proceedings

9-12 July 2012

Durban, South Africa

James W. Cain III andJason P. Marshal, Editors

�

Proceedings of the IVth International Wildlife Management Congress

9-12 July 2012Durban, South Africa

EditorsJames W. Cain III Jason P. Marshal

Cooperative Wildlife Management Across Borders:Learning in the Face of Change

Copyright © 20�3 by The Wildlife SocietyAll rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by photostat, microform, retrieval system, or by any other means, without the prior written permission of the publisher.

Distributed byThe Wildife Society54�0 Grosvenor LaneBethesda, MD 208�4ISBN 0-ISSN 0-

The Congress was organized by The Wildlife Society in cooperation with:Wildlife and Environmental Society of South Africa (WESSA)South African National Parks (SANParks)and EZEMVELO KZN Wildlife

HOSTED BY

IVth INTERNATIONAL WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT CONGRESSSTEERING COMMITTEE

ORGANIZING COMMITTEE

Paul Krausman - The Wildlife Society (TWS)

Darryl Walter - The Wildlife Society (TWS)

Tricia Fry - The Wildlife Society (TWS)

Mumsie Gumede - Wildlife and Environmental Society of South Africa (WESSA)

Garth Barnes - Wildlife and Environmental Society of South Africa (WESSA)

Chris Galliers - Wildlife and Environmental Society of South Africa (WESSA)

Bandile Mkize - Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife

Sifiso Keswa - Ezemvelo KZN Wildlife

Howard Hendricks - South Africa National Parks (SANParks)

Hector Magome - South Africa National Parks (SANParks)

Paul Krausman, Chair

Erik Beever

Steve Berwick

John Bissonette

Jeff Black

James Cain

Carol Chambers

Sandor Csanyi

Bill Gould

Aileen Guzman

Wini Kessler

Jeff Koschak

Chris E. Lowrey

Jason P. Marshal

James D. Murdoch

Johnathan O’Dell

Jason Ransom

Jason Scott

i

Robert Snyder

Erik Terdal

Francisco Vilella

Jeff Waldon

Darryl Walter

Gary White

Robin P. White

President: Paul R. Krausman, University of Montana, Missoula, MT 59812

President-Elect: Winifred B. Kessler, US Forest Service (retired), Prince George, BC, V2K 5L6, Canada

Vice President: Jonathan B. Haufler, Ecosystem Management Research Institute, Seeley Lake, MT 59868

Immediate Past-President: Thomas J. Ry-der, Wyoming Game & Fish Department, Cheyenne, WY 82006 Northeast Section Representative: John McDonald, Westfield State University, Westfield, MA 01085

North Central Section Representative: Karl J. Martin, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI 53716

Southwest Section Representative: Carol L. Chambers, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ 86011

Western Section Representative: Donald A. Yasuda, USDA Forest Service, McClel-lan, CA 95652

Southeastern Section Representative: Darren Miller, Weyerhaeuser Company, Columbus, MS 39704

Central Mts. & Plains Section Repre-sentative: Gary C. White, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523

Northwest Section Representative: Jack Connelly, Idaho Department of Fish and Game, Blackfoot, ID 83221

Canadian Section Representative: Rick Baydack, University of Manitoba, Winni-peg, Manitoba, Canada R3T 2N2

Student Liaison : Ashley Gramza, Fort Collins, CO 80524 EDITORSJournal of Wildlife Management: William M. Block, Flagstaff, AZ 86001

Wildlife Society Bulletin: Leonard Brennan, Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute, Kingsville, TX 78363-8202

Wildlife Monographs: Eric Hellgren, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL 62901

Technical Reviews: Theodore A. Bookhout, Worthington, OH 43085

THE WILDLIFE SOCIETY COUNCIL AND EDITORS

ii

CONGRESS SPONSORS

iii

FOREW0RD

Paul Krausman, Ph.D.20�2 President, The Wildlife Society

In July 20�2, wildlifers from around the globe gathered in Durban, South Africa for the IVth Interna-tional Wildlife Management Congress (IWMC). The Wildlife Society (TWS) initiated the concept of the IWMC nearly 20 years ago. The first IWMC was held in San Jose, Costa Rica, in September �993 (before the first TWS Annual Conference in 1994), drawing 521 participants from 66 countries—a gratifying turnout al-lowing an exchange of information between developed and developing nations. The second IWMC occurred in Godollo, Hungary, in summer �999, where 357 par-ticipants gathered from 40 countries. The third took place in Christchurch, New Zealand, in December 2003, with 943 attendees from 52 nations—the larg-est gathering of wildlifers ever in the Southern Hemi-sphere. The IVth IWMC, co-hosted with the Wildlife and Environmental Society of South Africa, was also a success with nearly 400 attendees from 35 countries. The atmosphere was charged with dynamic energy from discussions of rhino poaching, tiger conserva-tion, fragmentation by roads and canals, international models of conservation, cross border cooperation, con-flict management, wildlife ranching, and contemporary concerns across North America, Europe, Africa, Asia, and the other corners of the world. Radio and newspa-per journalists closely covered the event and broadcast the news widely in Japan, Germany, South Africa, and elsewhere around the world, providing powerful expo-sure for issues that concern us all. As the IVth IWMC in Durban illustrated, the ques-tion of how to address human influences on wildlife is a global concern that requires international coop-eration among wildlife scientists and managers. Such

international collaboration has become increasingly important to The Wildlife Society (TWS). Indeed, the importance of our involvement in this arena cannot be overstated. Wildlife is, after all, an international re-source, and all wildlifers should view it as such. This kind of international collaboration with partners in the host country is essential if TWS is to effectively ad-dress the mounting challenges to wildlife management and conservation. These include the human popula-tion explosion, habitat loss and fragmentation, disease emergence, the spread of invasive plants and animals, climate changes, pollution, the devaluation of wildlife through practices such as game farming, the decline or lack of dedicated conservation funding, threats to the sustainable use of wildlife, changing property rights, negative human attitudes towards wildlife, and the dis-connect between humans and nature, which leads to conservation apathy. These are only some of the chal-lenges biologists worldwide have to deal with in the day to-day management and conservation of wildlife species. International congresses bring these issues to the world stage and convince us of the importance of meaningful involvement with wildlife beyond the bor-ders of North America.

One of the seven pillars of the North American Model recognizes wildlife as an international resource, and TWS has always acknowledged the importance of this principle and taking steps to be involved in inter-national management and conservation. This priority is reflected by our own membership, which now extends well beyond North America to include members in 5� countries around the globe, from Andorra to Uruguay. Many of our international colleagues join us at our An-

iv

nual Conference to share their knowledge and learn from the science, research, and fieldwork of North American wildlifers.

International wildlife management is something TWS will always be involved in. The Society has al-ways been concerned with worldwide events related to wildlife. This remains one of our strengths, and is becoming more important than ever as human popula-tions grow and habitats shrink. Aside from its merits for wildlife conservation, international collaboration to protect our natural resources reflects our shared hu-manity and enriches the human spirit—a win for all species that inhabit the Earth.

Dramatic changes in international wildlife manage-ment are as fast paced as the changes in the world of publication--the move from paper to paperless manu-

v

scripts and books. The proceedings of the first and second IWMC were published by TWS, but for the third IWMC TWS only published the abstracts due to publication expenses and rising costs of international postage. For the IVth IWMC the Congress organizers opted for on-line publishing. This is still a fairly new concept and one not embraced by all members of our profession. Thus, of the �35 oral presentations, 30 posters, and papers in workshops, panels, and sympo-siums presented, we only received a handful of manu-scripts to include in the electronic proceedings. Fortu-nately, they cover the globe and are representative of the papers at the Congress.

As we wrap up the IVth IWMC, plans are underway for the V IWMC in Sapporo, Japan in 20�5. I encour-age you to come and look forward to seeing you all there. Keep it wild!

ABOUT THE WILDLIFE SOCIETY

The Wildlife Society is committed to a world where humans and wildlife co-exist. We work to ensure that wildlife and habitats are conserved through management actions that take into careful consideration relevant scientific information. We create opportunities for this to occur by involving professional wildlife managers, disseminating wildlife science, advocating for effective wildlife policy and law, and building the active support of an informed citizenry.

Our mission is to represent and serve the professional community of scientists, managers, educators, technicians, planners, and others who work actively to study, manage, and conserve wildlife and habitats worldwide.

The members of The Wildlife Society manage, conserve, and study wildlife popu-lations and habitats. They actively manage forests, conserve wetlands, restore en-dangered species, conserve wildlife on private and public lands, resolve wildlife damage and disease problems, and enhance biological diversity. TWS members are active across the United States, Canada, and Mexico, as well as internationally.

The products of The Wildlife Society include essential, practical, and objective information for wildlife profes-sionals. We provide research, policy information, and practical tools in print and electronic forms, along with vibrant professional networks that allow solutions to wildlife conservation and management challenges to be anchored in science.

Table of ConTenTs

vi

What is the Future of Bison Conservation? ......................................................................................�

Wildlife Management and Conservation in Europe: Transboundary Solutions ............................................9

The Insularization of Amboseli National Park, Kenya ....................................................................... �6

Habitat Associations of Persian Wild Ass (Equus hemionus onager) in Qatrouyeh National Park, Iran ............ 25

Stewardship - The Role of Rural Residential Estates in Nature Conservation in South Africa........................ 3�

How Might International Contributions Be Made Towards Conserving Africa’s Rich Wildlife Heritage? Some Suggestions ................................................................................ 37

Evaluating Strategies to Favor Community Participation in the Conservation of Andean Cats ....................... 43

Mitigation to Minimize Mortality Along the All-American Canal, California, USA ................................... 47

Involving Communities in Wildlife Ranching in Zimbabwe: A Grass-roots Initiative.................................. 53

Restoration and Wildlife Conservation as an Economic Income Alternative ............................................. 64

Predation Management in the United States: The Federal Wildlife Services Program ................................ 69

Managing Human-Wildlife Conflicts on the “Hard Edges” Symposium and Panel Discussion ....................... 76

The Effect of Woodland Caribou Range Components on Habitat Selection and Forestry Activity ................... 8�

Developing an Organizational Relocation Policy ............................................................................. 90

Porcine Zona Pellucida Immunocontraception of African Elephants (Loxodonta africana): Beyond the Experimental Stage .............................................................................................. 95

Kohl et al. • Future of Bison Conservation

�

WHAT IS THE FUTURE OF BISON CONSERVATION?

MICHEL T. KOHL, Boone and Crockett Wildlife Conservation Program, University of Montana, 32 Campus Drive, Missoula, MT 59812 USA

JEROD A. MERKLE, Département de Biologie, Université Laval, Pavillon Alexandre-Vachon, 1045 Avenue de la Médecine, Québec, QC, G1V OA6 Canada

PAUL R. KRAUSMAN, Boone and Crockett Wildlife Conservation Program, University of Montana, 32 Campus Drive, Missoula, MT 59812, USA

KYRAN KUNKEL, Wildlife Biology Program, Uni-versity of Montana, 32 Campus Drive, Missoula, MT 59812, USA

KEITH AUNE, Wildlife Conservation Society North American Program, 301 North Willson Avenue, Bozeman, MT 59714, USA

C. CORMACK GATES, Faculty of Environmental Design, University of Calgary, 2500 University Drive NW, Calgary, AB T2N 1N4, Canada

SAM. D. FUHLENDORF, Department of Natural Resource Ecology and Management, Oklahoma State University, 008C Agricultural Hall, Stillwa-ter, OK 74078, USA

ABSTRACT: The conservation of the plains bison (Bison bison) is considered one of the greatest conser-vation success stories in North America. Although the historic distribution of bison (plains and wood bison [B.b. athabascae]) was larger than any other indig-enous large herbivore in North America, market hunt-ing and competition with the livestock industry reduced the plains bison to ≤1,000, with only 25 free-ranging animals left in the world by �902. Through the coop-eration of private individuals, non-profit organizations, and the federal governments of the U.S. and Canada, bison were saved from extinction and are now scat-tered throughout much of their historical range, num-bering >500,000 individuals. Despite the numerical recovery of the species, recent questions have surfaced regarding the true success of this effort as

2


however most estimates range from 30 to 60 million bison (Seton �929, McHugh �972, Lott 2002). Fol-lowing European settlement, bison numbers declined rapidly as a result market hunting by European set-tlers (Hornaday �887, Isenberg 2000) in addition to competition with domestic livestock (McHugh �972, Dary �989, Danz �997, Isenberg 2000). As a result, 500,000 bison in North America today; yet,


3

A further examination of these conservation herds provokes questions regarding the ecological effective-ness of bison restoration at a landscape scale. Of the 62 conservation herds, �3% (n = 8) are located outside the historical range of bison and 92% (n = 57) consist of 2,000 km2 (Gates and Elli-son 20�0) and �6% do not contain breeding age males. Ecologically, wolves are the only effective predator of adult bison, yet they are associated with only �0% of conservation herds (Gates and Ellison 20�0).

As a result, conservationists are questioning whether bison are facing an ecological extinction event (Freese et al. 2007). To reverse this trend, the Wild-life Conservation Society designed a foundation for bison restoration through the Vermejo Statement (Red-ford and Fearn 2007) which states, “Over the next cen-tury, the ecological recovery of the North American bison will occur when multiple large herds move freely across extensive landscapes within all major habitats of their historical range, interacting in ecologically sig-nificant ways with the fullest possible set of other na-tive species, and inspiring, sustaining and connecting human cultures.”

Expanding on this work, Sanderson et al. (2008) established a scoring matrix to quantifying the conser-vation value of these herds. Exceptional contributors to ecological restoration included naturally structured herds of >5,000 individuals. Herds should consist of genetically pure and disease free animals which are impacted by all natural ecological interactions includ-ing predation. Lastly, herds located on landscapes >2,000 km2 are considered excellent contributors to bison recovery (Sanderson et al. 2008). Similarly, Lott (2002) hypothesized that >�3,000 km2 is neces-sary for an ecologically functional prairie landscape. More recently, Kohl (20�2) examined single foraging patch sizes of bison that when multiplied by historical spatial and temporal scales equates to landscape scales similar in size to these previous estimates.

Given the current status of bison (Boyd 2003, Gates et al. 20�0a) and restoration guidelines (Redford and Fearn 2007, Sanderson et al. 2008, Gates et al. 20�0b), we outline the important conservation chal-lenges facing the ecological restoration of bison today, and then discuss these challenges in light of the current model for bison conservation (i.e., numerous small, confined bison populations). In conclusion, we outline contemporary steps that are being taken to conserve bison, and provide a comment on how things need to change to prevent the ecological extinction of bison.

CONSERVATION CHALLENGESDomesticationDomestication may permanently alter the bison genetic pool while producing significant changes to morphol-ogy, physiology, and behavior as a result of anthropo-genic selection and the loss of natural selection (Freese et al. 2007). Within the commercial herds, cattle hus-bandry practices are common resulting in non-random selection of traits leading to docility, reduced agility, and growth performance while also altering sex ratio and age structure (Gates et al. 20�0a). The elimination of mature males further influences mate competition and natural selection (Gates et al. 20�0a). Domesti-cated bison may also pose significant issues to bison conservation if commercial animals establish cattle introgression within conservation herds when inten-tionally or accidently mixed with conservation herds (Boyd et al. 20�0). Furthermore, increased commer-cial herds may lead to the misconception that bison are no longer vulnerable to conservation issues because of demographic recovery (Gates and Gogan 20�0).

HybridizationA concerted effort to create “beefalo” through the cross-breeding of bison and domestic cattle occurred during the late �800s and early �900s to create a more resilient winter species while maintaining the meat pro-duction qualities of cattle (Dary �989, Oglivie �979). The concept dates back to the �6th century (Dary �989) and was actively pursued by the Canadian government as late as the early �960s (Ogilvie �979). These ef-forts have resulted in widespread domestic cattle gene introgression in the mitochondrial and nuclear DNA of bison (Halbert and Derr 2007). Today, only 8 con-servation herds are free of genetic introgression (Boyd et al. 20�0) and only the Yellowstone National Park (YNP) and Wind Cave National Park (WCNP) herds have had large enough samples to confidently evaluate introgression levels (Boyd et al. 20�0). Of these 2, recent work has demonstrated minimal introgression in bison in WCNP (K. Kunkel, unpublished data). Further complicating the conservation of the bi-son genome are questions related to historical and geo-graphic differences. Despite low levels of cattle intro-gression, some public herds may contribute to bison conservation due to unique historical and geographic lineages (Halbert 2003, Halbert and Derr 2007). As a result, these lineages are important in the long-term conservation of the bison genome regardless of intro-gression levels and should be preserved (Boyd et al. 20�0). Similarly, herds considered free of cattle intro-gression should be managed in isolation from hybrid-ized herds (Boyd et al. 20�0).

4


DiseaseNine diseases are recognized by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN)- Bison Specialist Group as diseases of concern for bison con-servation; however, only the YNP and Grand Teton National Park/National Elk Refuge (Jackson herd) herds (24% of the bison conservation population) are significantly impacted by chronic disease issues (Aune and Gates 20�0).

Brucellosis.—Brucellosis (Brucella abortus) is primarily found in bovine species; however, elk play a transmission role in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosys-tem (Davis �990). Primarily transmitted through oral contact with aborted fetuses, contaminated placentas, and uterine discharges (Reynolds et al. �982, Tessaro 1989), brucellosis leads to first pregnancy abortion in > 90% of infected female bison (Davis �990, Davis et al. �990). Natural immunity reduces the abortion rate to 20% and ~ 0% by the second and third pregnancy, respectively (Davis �990, Davis et al. �990). Due to similar symptoms in domestic cattle, infected bison populations are heavily managed to minimize transmis-sion from bison to domestic livestock (Keiter �997), despite no confirmed cases of transmission in the wild (Bienen 2002, Cheville et al. �998, Shaw and Mea-gher 2000). No highly effective vaccine is available; however, quarantine protocols and test and slaughter protocols may effectively eliminate all animals within an exposed population (Aune and Gates 20�0).

In YNP, the Interagency Bison Management Program (IBMP) was adopted as a cooperative, multi-agency plan to guide bison and brucellosis management to maintain wild, free-ranging bison, while reducing the transmission risk of brucellosis to domestic cattle (USDOI and USDA 2000). Management has incorpo-rated multiple strategies including spatial and temporal separation of bison and cattle, capture-test-slaughter actions, quarantine and translocation actions, hazing of bison back into YNP, and vaccination (USDOI and USDA 2000). In the Jackson herd, intense manage-ment actions based on spatial and temporal separation are not as prominent as in YNP, rather management aims to reduce elk and bison dependency upon the win-ter feeding grounds while utilizing brucellosis vaccina-tion program for both species while simultaneously us-ing hunting to reduce and later maintain the population at 500 individuals (Aune and Gates 20�0).

Legal StatusBison do not typically have equal legal or policy status when compared to other wildlife species because of early conservation practices that classified and man-aged bison as a form of livestock (Aune and Wallen 20�0). Today, bison management and conservation is

highly complicated because of this conservation lega-cy, particularly in cases of threatened species listing (see below).

Listing.—From a global perspective, the IUCN lists the bison (wood and plains bison) as “Near Threatened” (IUCN 2012). According to federal des-ignation, bison are a “Red-Listed” species in Mexico; however, bison are currently not listed in Canada under the Species at Risk Act because of potential economic implications for the Canadian bison industry (Aune and Wallen 2010). Bison are classified as “Threatened” by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Similarly, bison are not listed under Endan-gered Species legislation in the U.S. A primary dif-ficulty for listing in the U.S. and Canada is complica-tion caused by the classification of hybridized animals (Boyd and Gates 2006) and the role of commercial bi-son producers in the numerical status of bison.

Classification.—The classification of bison as wildlife, livestock or both, is jurisdictionally depen-dent. Within their historical range, bison are classified as wildlife in 4 Canadian provinces, �0 U.S. states, and � Mexican state; however, free-ranging popula-tions do not exist in all these areas. Where bison do exist as “wildlife”, they are typically managed within fence preserves (Aune and Wallen 20�0). Outside of these areas, bison are typically classified and managed as livestock by private ownership, thus are governed by animal health and trade regulations.

Ownership.—Bison conservation within the pri-vate sector is largely a secondary objective behind com-mercial production. However, conservation groups such as The Nature Conservancy, American Prairie Reserve, and World Wildlife Fund have established privately owned herds focused on bison conservation. In addition, North American indigenous peoples are playing a key role in conservation because of the bi-son’s cultural importance and role in restoring cultural connections in addition to dietary and economic ben-efits. Despite these efforts, bison managed by these groups face difficult challenges such as management restrictions, insufficient funding, and litigation.

Availability of Restoration SitesThe identification of bison restoration sites has been particularly problematic because landscapes large enough to support ecologically interactive bison popu-lations are limited. In particular, human development and habitat conversion has expanded into many areas capable of supporting large bison populations. For ex-ample, private agricultural operations can be found in almost all areas suitable for bison restoration, even on public land. Besides direct forage competition between bison and livestock, potential conflicts may include hu-


5

man safety issues and property damage (e.g., fencing, crop depredation). As a result, the social difficulties of translocation have increased, particularly when consid-ering the restoration of bison to mixed-ownership and mixed-management landscapes. These areas require detailed restoration plans which provide guidelines for dealing with management issues and conflicts. In these areas, coordination among private individuals, local, state, federal, and tribal governments, wildlife agen-cies, conservation organizations and other concerned parties has been difficult but successful and is a neces-sity for long-term success.

DISCUSSION AND REVIEW OF CURRENT INI-TIATIVESThroughout the last century it has been easier to start and maintain multiple small herds due to challenges listed above, however this trend raises questions about the efficacy of this model in the future of bison con-servation. Have bison been restored ecologically? Are conservation initiatives actually meeting the restoration criteria set forth by Freese et al. (2007), Sanderson et al. (2008), and Gates et al. (20�0b)? The following review of recent bison initiatives provides insight into these questions.

Grasslands National ParkGrasslands National Park is located on the U.S. – Can-ada border in southern Saskatchewan. The park was formally established in �98� by the Canadian federal government and is currently managed by Parks Can-ada. Seventy-one bison were translocated from Elk Island National Park in 2005 and have since grown to approximately 350 individuals. Disease-free and ge-netically pure, these animals are maintained within �82 km2 fenced region of the park. Current management plans will maintain the herd at approximately 800 ani-mals; however, a range expansion may occur in com-ing years providing availability for a larger population. Although large predators are not found in the area, future expansion of wolves into the area may lead to overlap with the park.

American Prairie ReserveAmerican Prairie Reserve (APR) is a non-profit orga-nization established in 200� with the goal of acquiring and managing private land and public grazing leases to establish a fully-functioning prairie-based wildlife reserve in north-central Montana, USA. Since estab-lishment, APR has purchased and leased 498 km2 of prairie, of which 57 km2 currently support bison. Ap-proximately 325 disease-free animals currently graze the reserve. All animals have been genetically tested and all animals acquired from WCNP which contained

levels of cattle introgression were removed from the population in 20��. Genetically pure animals from Elk Island National Park were used to augment the popula-tion in 20�0 (n = 94) and 20�2 (n = 70). The bison pasture will double in the coming years and will be further expanded as land purchases allow. No large predators currently exist in the region; however, griz-zly bears have ventured within 200 km of the reserve (Robbins 20��). Future reserve plans include a land-scape of >�4,000 km2 that support a full suite of native wildlife including �0,000 bison and large predators.

El Uno Ecological ReserveThe El Uno Ecological Reserve (EUER), located in Chihuahua, Mexico, is owned and managed by The Nature Conservancy. The EUER is a part of the larg-er Janos Biosphere Reserve which consists of a mix of private owners and ejidos (communal agriculture lands). Bison were translocated from WCNP in 2009 with 38 animals currently occupying approximately 20 km2 of the EUER. The EUER has been registered as a Wildlife Management Area with the Mexican Fed-eral Government which will permit an increase in the bison pasture and herd size. As a result, future man-agement will maintain a sustainable herd size of �57 animals and a maximum of 2�0 (Laura Paulson, The Nature Conservancy, personnel communication). No sustainable populations of large predators are currently located in the region.

These examples illustrate the range of recent res-toration efforts for bison. From government-based herds on public land (i.e., Grasslands National Park) to completely private conservation herds (i.e., EUER), the conservation of bison comes in multiple forms. However, when considering the criteria for the eco-logical restoration of bison, many programs fall short. Are these bison herds able to move freely across the landscape? Are the effort’s goals >5,000 individu-als? Will these herds face historical predation? These questions seem easy to answer, but is this the model of bison conservation that will actually restore bison, ecologically, in North America?

CONCLUSIONAs bison conservation continues forward, we as man-agers and conservationists understand the challenges associated with bison restoration. Additionally, we have been provided with guidelines for the successful restoration of bison (Redford and Fearn 2007, Sander-son et al. 2008, Gates et al. 20�0b). After reviewing the projects above in light of ecologically restored bi-son populations, it leads us to speculate on the feasibil-ity and intentions of bison restoration efforts. If we understand the challenges and issues associated with

6


bison restoration, shouldn’t conservation target the restoration of the species in landscapes large enough to support ecologically restored bison herds, not small bison herds maintained behind wire? If so, then we as managers and conservationists, along with the general public, and all interested and affected parties must join in the discussion on how we proceed.

If we as society desire an ecologically restored bison population, we must then initiate a shift in bison conservation which takes us away from small, isolated conservation herds and toward ecological recovery. Naturally, there will be social, political, and biological ramifications to deal with; however, these issues are not new to wildlife conservation. To proceed, we must shift our focus toward expanding existing herds that have the potential for a large ecological footprint. In regions currently lacking bison, we must focus our ef-forts on the translocation of bison to areas that can meet the aforementioned conservation criteria. Never again will bison roam North American by the millions, but it is ecologically, culturally, and historically important to continue the conservation of this North American icon. Thus, it is time we shift our model of bison conserva-tion toward ecologically functional populations rather than livestock and fenced wildlife.

LITERATURE CITEDAune, K. E. and C. C. Gates. 20�0. Reportable or

notifiable diseases. Pages 27-38 in C. C. Gates, C. H. Freese, P. J. P. Gogan, and M. Kotzman, editors. American Bison: Status survey and con-servation guidelines 20�0. International Union for Conservation of Nature, Gland, Switzerland.

Aune, K. E., and R. L. Wallen. 20�0. Legal status, policy issues and listings. Pages 63-84 in C. C. Gates, C. H. Freese, P. J. P. Gogan, and M. Kotzman, editors. American Bison: Status survey and conservation guidelines 20�0. International Union for Conservation of Nature, Gland, Swit-zerland.

Bienen, L. 2002 Informed decisions: conservation cor-ridors and the spread of disease. Conservation in Practice 3:�0-�7.

Boyd, D. P. 2003. Conservation of North American bison: status and recommendations. Thesis, Uni-versity of Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Boyd, D. P. and C. C. Gates. 2006. A brief review of the status of plains bison in North America. Jour-nal of the West 45:�5-2�.

Boyd, D. P., G. A. Wilson, J. N. Derr, and N. D. Hal-bert. 20�0. Genetics. Pages �9-26 in C. C. Gates, C. H. Freese, P. J. P. Gogan, and M. Kotzman, editors. American Bison: Status survey and con-

servation guidelines 20�0. International Union for Conservation of Nature, Gland, Switzerland.

Bragg, A. N. �940. Observations on the ecology and natural history of Anura I: habits, habitat, and breeding of Bufo congantus Say. American Natu-ralist 74: 424-438.

Cheville, N. F., D. R. McCullough, and L. R. Paul-son. �998. Brucellosis in the Greater Yellowstone Area. National Academy Press, Washington D. C., USA.

Coder, G. D. �975. The national movement to pre-serve the American buffalo in the United States and Canada between �880 and �920. Dissertation. Ohio State University, Columbus, USA.

Collins, S. L., and G. E. Uno. �983. The effect of early spring burning on vegetation in buffalo wal-los. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club ��0: 474-48�.

Coppock, D. L., J. E. Ellis, J. K. Detling, M. I. Dyer. �983. Plant-herbivore interactions in a North American mixed-grass prairie. II. Responses of bi-son to modification of vegetation by prairie dogs. Oecologia 56:�0-�5.

Corn, S. P., and C. R. Peterson. �996. Prairie legacies – amphibians and reptiles. Pages �25-234 in F. B. Samson and F. L. Knopf, editors. Prairie Conser-vation. Island Press, Washington D.C. USA.

Danz, H. P. �997. Of bison and man: from the annals of a bison yesterday to a refreshing outcome from human involvement with American’s most valiant of beasts. University of Colorado Press, Niwot, USA.

Dary, D. A. �989. The buffalo book: the full saga of the American Animal. Swallow Press, Chicago, Il-linois, USA.

Davis, D. S. �990. Brucellosis in wildlife. Pages 32�-334 in K. Nielsen and J. R. Duncan, editors. Ani-mal brucellosis. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA.

Davis, D. S., J. W. Templeton, T. A. Ficht, J. D. Williams, J. D. Kopec, and L. G. Adams. �990. Brucella abortus in captive bison. I. serology, bac-teriology, pathogenesis and transmission to cattle. Journal of Wildlife Diseases 26:360-37�.

Freese, C. H., K. E. Aune, D. P. Boyd, J. N. Derr, S. C. Forrest, C. C. Gates, P. J. P. Gogan, S. M. Grassel, N. D. Halbert, K. Kunkel, and K. H. Redford. 2007. Second chance for the plains bison. Biological Conservation �36:�75-�84.

Fuhlendorf, S. D., D. M. Engle, J. Kerby, and R. Hamilton. 2008. Pyric herbivory: rewilding land-scapes through the recoupling of fire and grazing. Conservation Biology 23:588–598.


7

Gates, C. C. and K. Ellison. 20�0. Numerical and geo-graphic status. Pages 55-62 in C. C. Gates, C. H. Freese, P. J. P. Gogan, and M. Kotzman, editors. American Bison: Status survey and conservation guidelines 20�0. International Union for Conserva-tion of Nature, Gland, Switzerland.

Gates, C. C. and P. J. P. Gogan. 20�0. Introduc-tion: the context. Pages �-4 in C. C. Gates, C. H. Freese, P. J. P. Gogan, and M. Kotzman, editors. American Bison: Status survey and conservation guidelines 20�0. International Union for Conserva-tion of Nature, Gland, Switzerland.

Gates, C. C., C. H. Freese, P. J. P. Gogan, and M. Kotzman. 20�0a. American bison: status survey and conservation guidelines 20�0. International Union for Conservation of Nature,, Gland, Swit-zerland.

Gates, C. C., R. O. Stephenson, P. J. P. Gogan, C. H. Freese, and K. Kunkel. 20�0b. Guidelines for ecological restoration of bison. Pages �03-��2 in C. C. Gates, C. H. Freese, P. J. P. Gogan, and M. Kotzman, editors. American Bison: Status survey and conservation guidelines 20�0. International Union for Conservation of Nature, Gland, Swit-zerland.

Halbert, N. D. 2003. The utilization of genetic mark-ers to resolve modern management issues in his-toric bison populations: implications for species conservation. Dissertation, Texas A&M Univer-sity, College Station, USA.

Halbert, N. D., and J. Derr. 2007. A comprehensive evaluation of cattle introgression into U.S. federal bison herds. Journal of Heredity 98:�-�2.

Hornaday, W. T. �887. The extermination of the American bison with a sketch of its discovery and life history. U.S. National Museum, Washington, D.C. USA.

International Union for Conservation of Nature [IUCN]. 20�2. IUCN red list of threatened spe-cies. . Accessed 2� Aug. 20�2.

Isenberg, A. C. 2000. The destruction of the bison: an environmental history �750-�920. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Keiter, R. B. �997. Greater Yellowstone’s bison: un-raveling of an early American wildlife conserva-tion achievement. Journal of Wildlife Management 6�:�-��

Knapp, A. K., J. M. Blair, J. M. Briggs, S. L. Col-lins, D. C. Hartnett, L. C. Johnson, and E. G. Towne. �999. The keystone role of bison in North American tallgrass prairie. BioScience 49: 39-50.

Knopf, F. L. �996. Prairie legacies – bird. Pages �35-�48 in F. B. Samson and F. L. Knopf, editors.

Prairie conservation: preserving North America’s most endangered ecosystem. Island Press, Wash-ington D.C., USA.

Kohl, M. T. 20�2. Bison conservation in the northern Great Plains. Thesis, University of Montana, Mis-soula, USA.

Krueger, K. �986. Feeding relationships among bison, pronghorn, and prairie dogs: an experimental anal-ysis. Ecological Society of America 67:760-770.

Lott, D. F. 2002. American bison: a natural histo-ry. University of California Press, Los Angeles, USA.

McHugh, T. �958. Social behavior of the American buffalo (Bison bison bison). Zoologica 43:�-40.

McHugh, T. �972. The time of the buffalo. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, USA.

Meagher, M. M. �973. The bison of Yellowstone National Park. National Park Service Scientific Monograph Series �, Mammoth, Wyoming, USA.

Ogilvie, S. C. �979. The Park Buffalo. Calgary-Banff Chapter, National and Provincial Parks Associa-tion of Canada, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

Polley, H. W. and L. L. Wallace. �986. The relation-ship of plant species heterogeneity to soil variation in buffalo wallows. American Midland Naturalist ��2: �78-�86.

Powell, F. L. A. 2006. Effects of prescribed burns and bison (Bos bison) grazing on breeding bird abundances in tallgrass prairie. The Auk �23: �83-�97.

Redford, K. H., and E. Fearn. 2007. Ecological future of bison in North America: a report from a multi-stakeholder. Wildlife Conservation Society Work-ing Paper No. 30, Bronx, New York, USA.

Reynolds, H. W., R. D. Glaholt, and A. W. L. Haw-ley. �982. Bison. Pages 972-�007 in J.A. Chap-man and G.A. Feldhamer, editors. Wild mammals of North America: biology, management, and eco-nomics. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Bal-timore, Maryland, USA.

Robbins, J. 20��. Grizzlies return, with strings at-tached. The New York Times. �6 August 20��; section D:�.

Sanderson, E. W., K. H. Redford, B. Weber, K. Aune, D. Baldes, J. Berger, D. Carter, C. Cur-tin, J. Curtin, J. Derr, S. Dobrott, E. Fearn, C. Fleener, S. Forrest, C. Gerlach, C. C. Gates, J. E. Gross, P. Gogan, S. Grassel, J. A. Hilty, M. Jensen, K. Kunkel. D. Lammers, R. List, K. Minkowski, T. Olson, C. Pague, P. B. Robertson, and B. Stephenson. 2008. The ecological future of the North American bison: conceiving long-term, large-scale conservation of wildlife. Conservation Biology 22:252-266.

8


Seton, E. T. �929. Lives of game animals, 4 volumes. Doubleday, Doran & Co., Garden City, New York, USA.

Shaw, J. H. �995. How many bison originally populat-ed western rangelands? Rangelands �7:�48-�50.

Shaw, J., and M. Meagher. 2000. Bison. Pages 447-466 in S. Desmarais and P. R. Krausman, editors. Ecology and management of large mammals in North America. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle Riv-er, New Jersey, USA.

Tessaro, S. V. �989. Review of the diseases, para-sites and miscellaneous pathological conditions of North American bison. Canadian Veterinary Jour-nal 30:4�6-422.

U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDOI and USDA). 2000. Re-cord of the decision for final environmental impact statement and bison management plan for the state of Montana and Yellowstone National Park. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C., USA.

9

Bobek and Vingada • Wildlife in Transboundary Areas

WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AND CONSERVATION IN EUROPE: TRANSBOUNDARY SOLUTIONS

BOGUSŁAW BOBEK, Department of Ecology, Wild-life Research and Ecotourism, Pedagogical University of Cracow, Podbrzezie 3, 31-054 Krakow, Poland; Email: [email protected]

JOSE V. VINGADA, Department of Biology, Univer-sity do Minho, Campus de Gualtar, 4710-057 Braga, Portugal

ABSTRACT: In Europe there is considerable on-going interest in cooperation on transboundary areas concerning both conservation and management of wildlife. The available publications, discussions, and interviews with wildlife biologists indicate that trans-national cooperation could be carried out on a pan-Eu-ropean, regional or local scale. Pan-European coop-eration would tend to focus evaluation and monitoring of population numbers in birds, for example to man-age conflicts between cormorants and humans. Other pan-European agreements concern the conservation of cetaceans in both the southern (Black, Mediterranean) and the north-western (Baltic, North-East Atlantic, Irish, North) seas of Europe. Regional cooperation has focused on numerical estimates of waterbird and seal populations of the Baltic Sea, the monitoring of quail populations in south-western Europe, and popula-tion dynamics and migrations of the pink-footed goose (Anser brachyrhynchus) between the Svalbard Islands and Northern Europe. In addition �2 countries in East-ern Europe have embarked on a joint program of vac-cinating red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) against rabies. Lo-cal cooperation schemes include population census of large carnivores, migration of moose (Alces alces) in Scandinavia, a trilateral quality assessment of the Wad-den Sea ecosystems, the Pyrenean network for moun-tain galliforms, population census and management regimes of the Dinaric brown bear (Ursus arctos), a re-covery program for Iberian lynx (Lynx pardinus), and population censuses of chamois (Rupicapra rupicapra) in the Tatra Mountains. The level of transboundary cooperation in management and conservation is very high in Nordic countries but is unsatisfactory in many remaining countries in Europe.

KEY WORDS: birds, conservation, Europe, inter-national cooperation, mammals, management, trans-boundary solutions.

Proceedings of the IVth International Wildlife Management Congress: 9-15, 2013

The number of wildlife species whose distribution is limited to a single country is relatively low. For this reason, in Europe there has been an ever-increasing interest in cooperation on transboundary areas, con-cerning both conservation and management of wildlife. The management of waterbirds making seasonal migra-tions should be based on an international monitoring scheme for population dynamics which, in turn, would provide the foundations to determine harvest quotas for particular countries. Transboundary cooperation is also necessary for the management of ungulates in mountains, where, in winter, these animals migrate regularly into lower areas (Findo et al. 2006). In these transboundary areas, where large carnivores occur, the monitoring of the population dynamics within the prey—predator interactions is an essential element of conservation practice (Salvatori et al. 2002). In the case of marine mammals, living both in territorial and international waters, the cooperation between various countries is important in order to eliminate such fac-tors as human disturbance, fishing methods, pollution, and maritime traffic effects which pose threats to their populations maintaining viable sizes. Thus, the objec-tive of this study was to present a dozen or so programs which already implement the conservation and man-agement of wildlife in transboundary areas, as well as those which could be implemented in these areas after suitable international agreements have been signed.

STUDY AREAThe land area of Europe is divided by borders of 44 countries, and the countries with sea coast have demar-cated territorial waters and economic zones. The man-agement and conservation of wildlife in transboundary areas is further complicated by differing status of wild animals which in particular countries can be national property, the property of landowners or res nullus (i.e., ownerless property; Bobek �99�). The coopera-tion in cross-border areas concerns also the waters of the Atlantic, the Mediterranean Sea, the North Sea, the Black Sea, and the Baltic Sea. The European Union of 27 countries is an organization of paramount impor-tance to the issues of international cooperation. For all its member states, the Union has set compulsory stan-dards concerning the conservation of wildlife and their habitats covered by the “Natura 2000” program.

METHODSThis review paper is based chiefly on materials pub-lished in both international and local scientific journals. Additional data were gathered through participation in �� international conference symposia and congresses on wildlife-related issues which have been held in the last 2 years. During these events the data were taken from oral and poster presentations, and from formal

�0


and informal discussions. Particularly helpful was the participation in the Pan-European Duck Symposium (Jindrichov, Czech Republic), European Congress of Conservation Biology (Prague, Czech Republic), the Hunting for Sustainability Conference (Ciudad Real, Spain), the Congress of the International Union of Game Biologists (Barcelona, Spain), and the confer-ence on Vertebrate Pest Management (Berlin, Ger-many). The work was supplemented by a dozen or so interviews with wildlife biologists taking part in trans-boundary programs in the field of research, manage-ment and conservation of wildlife.

RESULTSPan-European Cooperation

International Waterbird Census (IWC).—This is a site-based counting scheme for monitoring waterbird numbers. Since �967, the census has been organized annually by Wetland International (WI). The results are published (Delany and Scott 2006) and often used in the implementation of many international agree-ments such as the Convention of Migratory Species (CMS), and the African-Eurasian Waterbird Agree-ment (EAWA). In Europe, the IWC is carried out in 27 countries by ca. 2,000 people.

Pan-European common birds monitoring scheme.—This is a joint initiative of the European Bird Census Council and Birdlife International. Each year, birds are counted using standardized field methods (Vořišek et al. 2008) at sample plots selected through-out a specific area of a given country. The majority of work is done by skilled volunteers and managed by co-ordinators (Greenwood 2007). The results are used to calculate trends in the dynamics of numbers among se-lected species, over long- (since �980) and short-term time frames (since �990). The calculations allow one to obtain supranational species indices as well as trends and multispecies indicators. In 20��, the population census was carried out in 25 countries.

Great cormorant.—In Europe, the data on the population number of great cormorants (Phalacroco-rax carbo) have been very divergent, and for the years 2005—2006, they ranged from 866,000 to �.7 million (Delany and Scott 2006). It resulted in an acute conflict with commercial fisheries and recreational angling in-terests. In the years 2000—200�, the European Union financed a project entitled “Reducing the conflict be-tween cormorants and fisheries on a Pan-European scale”. The project was carried out by 49 individuals from 25 countries (Carss 2001). The final report of the project, code named REDCAFE states that there is no single solution to reduce the cormorant-fisheries con-flict on a Pan-European scale. The REDCAFE report contains recommendations to all interested countries to

devise a common strategy to mitigate the conflict with cormorants. Regrettably, individual states ignored the recommendations and continued their own national or regional mitigation policies, despite them not bringing the expected results.

Agreement covering the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic, North-East Atlantic, Irish and North Seas (ASCOBAN).—This agreement includes the marine environment around the shores of �7 coun-tries. Under ASCOBAN, 5 research projects have been implemented, concerning the effects of pollutants on the reproduction in dolphins, to develop a database concerning the situation of strandings, and the conflict between porpoises and fisheries. On the basis of the results obtained so far, and those available in publi-cations, a new concept of conservation/management units applicable to marine mammals was formulated (Palsboll 2009). International teams conducted popu-lation censuses that included porpoises and 3 species of dolphins. They also delineated the proposed conser-vation/management units (Evans and Teilmann 2009). Under the auspices of ASCOBAN, the Recovery Plan for the Baltic Harbour Porpoises Phocoena phocoena; (i.e., Jastarnia Plan) has been implemented (Pawliczka 2009). The ASCOBAN is a good example of interna-tional cooperation within transboundary areas of the countries-signatories to this agreement.

Agreement on the Conservation of Cetaceans in the Black Sea, Mediterranean Sea and Contiguous At-lantic Area (ACCOBAMS).—The purpose of ACCO-BAMS is to moderate the threats to cetaceans through suitable management of environmental pressures asso-ciated with commercial and recreational fishing, ship-ping, tourist industry, coastal development and urban growth. The potential area covered by the extent of the ACCOBAMS includes 28 states. At present, research projects are implemented concerning the stranding sites (on shoals), population census and structure, an-thropogenic noise, chemical pollution, and the impact from shipping (Evans 2008, Notarbortolo di Sciara and Birkun 20�0).

Regional CooperationThe pink-footed goose.—This species (Anser

brachyrhynchus) nests in Norway, on the Svalbard Is-lands, but spends its winters in Denmark, the Nether-lands, Belgium, and partly in Norway. The current population number is 70,000 (Trinder and Madsen 2008). During their wintering, the pink-footed goose causes considerable damage in stubble fields, winter wheat fields, and in grasslands. It is feared that a fur-ther increase in population numbers at nesting areas will cause long-term degradation of wet tundra habi-tats.

��


An international management plan was drafted for this species (Madsen and Williams 20�2). The plan for the pink-footed goose presumes keeping the population level at ca. 60,000 individuals, through hunting based on the monitoring of population numbers. However, to implement this plan in practice, the consent of the relevant authorities in each state within the range of this species is required.

The common quail.—Between �970 and �990 there was a dramatic drop in numbers of the common quail (Coturnix coturnix). Burfield (2004) suggest-ed that, at present, the number of common quails in south-western Europe had stabilized. To verify this, in 2005—2009 an international team conducted a moni-toring scheme of population numbers in �� breeding sites within France (3), Spain (5), Portugal (2), and Morocco (�). The analysis of the data obtained indi-cated that the quail population in the study area was stable (Rodriguez-Teijeiro et al. 20�0). It is recom-mended that changes in agricultural and environmental policies should be introduced that delay mowing and lengthen the biological cycle of cereals.

Status of Wintering Waterbird Populations in the Baltic Sea (SOWBAS).—The objective of this program, implemented during 2007—2009 was to estimate the numbers of waterbirds wintering in the Baltic Sea area. Nine countries with Baltic Sea shorelines participated in the project. The numbers of 20 species of birds was estimated at 4.4� million (Skov et al. 20��). This estimate was 4�% lower than that for a similar census undertaken in �992 and �993 (7.44 million; Durick et al. �994). It is thought that the reduction in popula-tion numbers of the studied species of birds has been caused by a decline in the nutrient loads of the coastal water of the southern and central Baltic Sea, climatic changes, oil contamination from tankers, and gill nets used for fishing.

Nordic Waterbirds and Climate (NOWAC) Net-work.—Elmberg et al. (2006) stated that there is a lack of important data needed to devise management strategies for the effective sustainable exploitation of migratory waterbird populations. In 20�0, a group of professional ornithologists, hunters and administrators from Denmark, Finland, Iceland, and Sweden created the NOWAC network. The aim of this group’s work will be to derive improved data on population and har-vest size, recruitment and survival rates and establish a mechanism to ensure the sustainable harvest of quarry waterbirds (Fox 20�2).

Grey seal in the Baltic Sea.—It was necessary to undertake international action for protecting the grey seal (Halichoerus grypus) populations in the Baltic Sea, after the seal numbers dropped from ca. �00,000 at the end of the �9th century to only 3,000 in the

�970s (Harding et al. 2007). The main reason for the declining seal population was overhunting (Harding and Harkonen �999, Kokko et al. �999). The restitu-tion of the grey seal population began after the sign-ing of the Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area in Helsinki (HEL-COM), in �974. The international census of grey seals began in �990 and the seals are counted in all countries around the Baltic Sea in a 2-week period at the break of May and June each year. In 2006 population numbers were estimated to be about 2�,000 individuals. Half of these were living in Finland, where hunting season for grey seals had been re-opened. There are inter-national research projects concerning migration routes of seals with the use of satellite transmitters (Sjoberg et al. �995), and monitoring habitat selection (Sjoberg and Ball 2000, Karlson 2003).

Fox rabies control.—In the past, rabies (Lyssa ra-bies) was a widespread viral disease prevalent among red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) in Central and Eastern Eu-rope and helped control population numbers of this species (Anderson et al. �98�). Since rabies poses a threat to humans as well as to domestic animals, the European Commission ordered a wide-scale program of oral immunization of foxes (OIF). The objective of the program was for the each EU state to reach the status of being ‘officially’ free of rabies. This goal was achieved in all countries in Western Europe. In Central Europe the action to immunize foxes began in 2000, and is ongoing in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Po-land, Slovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Italy, Russia (Ka-liningrad), Slovenia, Montenegro, and Serbia (Rabies-Bulletin-Europe 20�0). The vaccine is placed inside a pellet of bone-meat mix which is readily consumed by foxes. In Poland, oral immunization of foxes brought about a dramatic drop in the numbers of these animals which were carriers of rabies (Flis 2009). But the side-effect of immunization was a dramatic increase in the number of foxes and a drop in numbers of small game animals (Kamieniarz et al. 20��).

Local CooperationGallipyr project.—This is a network for the con-

servation of mountain Pyrenean galliforms. The proj-ect is implemented in the transboundary regions of France, Spain and Andorra by the “Forespir” organi-zation (Ayala 20��). In the course of the project, there are inventories of power line cables and wire fences being responsible for the deadly collisions with these species of bird. To reduce the number of fatalities, strips of specific colored materials were used to make these obstacles more visible to the birds. About �80 km of fences, and a third of dangerous power line ca-bles, have already been visualized. The spatial distri-

�2


bution of breeding habitats of capercaillies, partridges, and rock ptarmigans were also studied, with research on the impact of terrestrial predators, including wild boars, on capercaillie populations.

Trilateral Wadden Sea cooperation.—Since �978, the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany have been working together on the protection and conservation of the Wadden Sea. The main tasks of the Trilateral Wadden Sea Cooperation was to identify ‘ecology tar-gets’ and to establish a ‘trilateral monitoring program’. The ecology targets are described for 6 habitat types, and the objective of the trilateral management is to guarantee the natural functioning of the ecosystem of these habitat types through proper regulation of human activities. Trilateral Monitoring and Assessment Pro-gram was initiated in �994, and monitoring of human activities, pollution, algae, benthos, plant community, birds, fish and seals are performed regularly (Reijnders et al. 2005, Laursen et al. 20�0).

Large carnivores in Sweden and Norway.—The brown bear (Ursus arctos), Eurasian lynx (Lynx lynx), wolverine (Gulo gulo), and the gray wolf (Canis lupus) occur in Sweden and Norway. Past extermination cam-paigns reduced their numbers and led to the extinction of wolves and bears in Norway. From 2004 to 2007, the parliaments of both countries made it a political ob-jective to restore the numbers of these 4 species, with simultaneous minimization of conflicts with humans. A series of agreements were signed between Sweden and Norway, concerning the estimation of population numbers, with the use of comparable methods (Kind-berg et al. 20��, Swenson and Kindberg 20��).

Brown bears in Croatia and Slovenia.—Croatia and Slovenia share the same Dinaric brown bear popu-lation (Ursus arctos) estimated to be ca. �500 animals (Reljic et al. 20�2). The studies on brown bear popu-lations in the transboundary area are conducted by a Croatian—Slovenian team with some participating ex-perts from Norway. The work concerns the estimates of population numbers and the evaluation of various management regimes applied to brown bears in both countries.

Moose displacement patterns.—This was a joint Swedish—Norwegian research project concerning the movements of moose (Alces alces) within the trans-boundary area in the central parts of these 2 countries. The moose (n = �08) were immobilized from helicop-ters with the use of a dart gun and then equipped with GPS/GSM collars. The majority of moose captured in Sweden (87%) and Norway (67%) was classified as migratory animals displaying regular seasonal return movements to the previous places of occupancy (Bun-nefeld et al. 20��).

Iberian lynx.—The Iberian lynx is a critically en-dangered cat species with a highly restricted geographic distribution, which is limited to the Iberian Peninsula (Sarmento 2009). There is a joint Spanish—Portu-guese research program aimed to recover the Iberian lynx population in both countries. It is assumed that the program will progress in 2 stages. The first consists in developing a captive population of lynx, the second involves creating a free-ranging population through the reintroduction of captive animals (Barbosa and Real 2010). To achieve the first objective, the captive popu-lation will need to reach some 60—70 individuals that will constitute a breeding stock (Vargas et al. 2008). At present, in the centers where lynxes are bred, the traditional husbandry schemes are being adapted to promote the natural behaviour of these animals whilst they are in captivity (hunting, territoriality, social in-teractions).

Chamois of the Tatra Mountains.—Chamois oc-cur in the Tatra Mountains above tree line over an area of 322 km2 (Jamrozy et al. 2007). This area is divided by the 57-km-long Polish—Slovakian border and lies entirely within 2 national parks, one to each side of the border. The joint censuses taken using the total count method have been performed since �957 under an agreement signed by the 2 parks (Zięba et al. 2004).

DISCUSSIONThe initiatives concerning the conservation and man-agement of wildlife in transboundary areas of Europe face a number of barriers, as they usually infringe national interests and existing legislation in particular countries. Therefore, the majority of these initiatives are limited to the studies on the estimates of numbers and migrations of animals whose ranges cross national borders. The results of these studies indicate unam-biguously that ignoring the fact that some individuals have their home ranges on both sides of a border, leads to overestimates of population numbers in transbound-ary areas (Bishop and Swenson 20�2). The principles of joint international management plans are rarely im-plemented in practice. Transboundary cooperation is made easier when the species in question has the status of a protected species on both sides of the border, par-ticularly when it lives in protected areas (e.g., national parks; Jamrozy et al. 2007). It is difficult to achieve a satisfactory level of cooperation in transboundary areas when the species is classified as a game species on both sides of the border, or when the same species is a pro-tected species in � country, but a game species in the other (Salvatori et al. 2002, Reljic et al. 20�2).

The monitoring of population numbers of migra-tory birds requires the participation of large numbers of staff who, principally for financial reasons, are not

�3


professional wildlife biologists but volunteers. For this reason the data collected by them should be verified by professional wildlife biologists, because part of this could be the result of GIGO (garbage in garbage out). Europe is in urgent need of a supra-national structure, which will coordinate management actions for water-fowl populations, as is being performed by the Fly-way Councils in North America (Hawkins et al. �984, Connely et al. 20�2). The initiative in Europe should come from the European Commission. In the member states of the European Union some issues regarding the management and conservation of wildlife are regulated by the European Commission. These primarily con-cern the Natura 2000 sites, with their lists of protected bird species (Birds Directive) and of protected habitats (Habitats Directive).

In summary, the level of transboundary coopera-tion in the field of management and conservation of wildlife is very high within Scandinavia, where it is regulated by regional international institutions such as HELCOM and the Nordic Council of Ministers. In the remaining countries of Europe the level of transbound-ary cooperation is low and it is only an initiative from the European Union that could contribute to improved cooperation concerning conservation and management of wildlife in transboundary areas.

ACKNOWLEGMENTSSupport for this study was provided by the Polish Wildlife Foundation. We are grateful to V. Ayala, D. Carss, A. Fox, D. Huber, S. Kaczor, K. Laursen, J. Madsen, K. Sjoberg, K. Skóra, E. Solberg, J. Sw-enson and F. Zięba for assistance in preparing final manuscript. Also we thank M. Albrycht for technical correction of the manuscript.

LITERATURE CITEDAnderson, R.M., H.C. Jackon, R.M. May, and A.M.

Smith.�98�. Population dynamics of fox rabies in Europe. Nature 289:765-77�.

Ayala, V. F. 20��. Gallipyr: Pyreneyan network for the mountain game focal. Page 348 in Abstracts of 20th International Union of Game Biologists Con-gress, Barcelona, Spain.

Barbosa, A. M., and R. Real. 20�0. Favourable areas for expansion and reintroduction of Iberian lynx according for distribution trends and genetic diver-sity of the European rabbit. Wildlife Biology in Practice 6:34-47.

Bishop, R., and J. E. Swenson. 20�2. Linking non-invasive genetic sampling and traditional monitor-ing to aid management of a trans-border carnivore population. Ecological Applications 22:36�-373.

Bobek, B. �99�. Wildlife management concepts—pres-ent trends and perspectives for 2�st century. Pages �7-22 in S. Csanyi and J. Ernhaft, editors. Trans-actions of 20th Congress of the International Union of Game Biologists. Godollo, Hungary.

Bunnefeld, N., L. Borger, B. van Moorter, Ch. M. Rolandsen, H. Dettki, E. J. Solberg, and G. Erics-son. 20��. A model-driven approach to quantify migration patterns: individual, regional and yearly differences. Journal of Animal Ecology 80:466-476.

Burfield, I. 2004. Birds in Europe: population esti-mates, trends and conservation status. Birdlife Conservation Series, �2. Birdlife International, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

Carss, D. N., editor. 2001. Reducing the conflict be-tween cormorants and fisheries on a pan-European scale. Project Report to European Union, contract no Q5CA-2000-3�-3�387.

Connelly, J. W., J. H. Cammonley, and G. Keegan. 20�2. Harvest management. Pages 202-23� in N. J. Silvy, editor. The wildlife techniques manual: management. Volume 2. John Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

Delany, S., and D. A. Scott. 2006. Waterbird popula-tion estimates. Wetland International, Wagennin-gen, The Netherlands.

Durick, J., H. Skov, F. P. Jensen, and S. Pihl. �994. Important marine areas for wintering birds in the Baltic Sea. EUDG XI contract no 2242/90-09-0�. Ornis Consult Report.

Elmberg, J., P. Nummi, H. Pöysä, K. Sjöberg, G. Gunnarsson, P. Clausen, M. Guillemain, D. Ro-drigues, and V. M. Väänänen. 2006. The scientific basis for new and sustainable management of mi-gratory European ducks. Wildlife Biology �2:�2�-�27.

Evans, P. G. H., editor. 2008. Offshore wind farms and marine mammals: impact and methodologies for assessing impacts. Proceedings of the ASCO-BAN/ ECS Workshop, ECS Special Publication Series no 49.

Evans, P. G. H., and J. Teilmann., editors. 2009. ASCOBAN/HELCOM small cetacean population structure workshop, 8-�0 October 2007. ASCO-BANS, Bonn, Germany.

Findo, S., J. Bucko, and S. Steyart. 2006. Seasonal migration pattern of red deer (Cervus elaphus L.) in the central Slovakian mountains. Page 222 in L. Bartos, A. Dusek, R. Kotrba, and J. Bartoso-va-Vichova, editors. Advances in deer biology. Proceedings of the 6th International Deer Biology Congress, 7-�� August 2006, Prague, Czech Re-public.

�4


Flis, M. 2009. Effect of inoculation against rabies and the dynamics of fox population Medycyna Wetery-naryjna 65:�75-�78. [In Polish with English sum-mary.]

Fox, A. D. 20�2. Failing the giants upon whose shoul-ders we stand: information needs to European duck populations. Page �2 in Z. Musilova, P. Musil, and R. Hearn, editors. Abstracts of 3rd Pan-European Duck Symposium, Jindrichov, Czech Republic.

Greenwood, J. J. D. 2007. Citizens, science and bird conservation. Journal of Ornithology �48:77-�24.

Harding, K. C., and T. Harkonen. �999. Development in the Baltic grey seal (Halichoureus grypus) and ringed seal (Phoca hispida) populations during the 20th century. Ambio 28:6�9-627.

Harding, K. C., T. Harkonen, B. Helander, and O. Karlsson. 2007. Status of Baltic grey seals: popu-lation assessment and extinction risk. NAMMCO Scientific Publications 6:33-56.

Hawkins, A. S., R. C. Hanson, and H. M. Reeves. �984. Flyways: pioneering waterfowl management in North America. U.S. Government Printing Of-fice, Washington, D.C., USA.

Jamrozy, G., Ł. Pęksa, Z. Urbanik, and W. Gąsienica-Byrcyn. 2007. The Tatra chamois Rupicapra rupi-capra tatrica. Tatrzański Park Narodowy, Zako-pane 2007. [In Polish with English summary.]

Kamieniarz, R., M. Panek, and M. Skorupski. 20��. Influence of rabies control of fox on population dynamics of small game in Poland. Page �20 in Abstracts of 30th Congress of International Union of Game Biologists. Barcelona, Spain.

Karlsson, O. 2003. Population structure movements and site fidelity of grey seals in the Baltic Sea. Dis-sertation, University of Stockholm, Sweden.

Kindberg, J., J. E. Swenson, G. Ericsson, E. Bel-lemain, C. Miguel, and P. Taberlet. 20��. Esti-mating population size and trends of the Swedish brown bear (Ursus arctos) population. Wildlife Bi-ology �7:��4-�23.

Kokko, H., E. Welle, J. Lindström, E. Ranta, T. Sip-ila, and Courchamp. �999. Backcasting population size of ringed grey seals in the Baltic and Lake Saimoa during the 20th century. Annales Zoologici Fennici 36:65-73.

Laursen, K. , J. Blew, K. Eskildsen, K. Günther, B. Hälterlein, R. Kleefstra, G. Lüerssen, P. Potel, and S. Schrader. 20�0. Migratory waterbirds in the Wadden Sea �987-2008. Common Wadden Sea Secretariat, Wilhelmshaven, Germany.

Madsen, J., and J. H. Williams, compilers. 20�2. International species management plan for the Svalbard population of pink-footed goose, Anser

brachyrhynchus. AEWA Technical Series No XX, Bonn. Germany.

Noterbortolo di Sciara, G., and A. Birkun Jr. 20�0. Conserving whales, dolphins and porpoises in the Mediterranean and Black Seas. ACCOBANS Sta-tus Report 20�0.

Palsboll, P. J. 2009. Justification for re-evaluation of the concept of management units. Pages 30—3� in P. H. Evans and J. Teilmann, editors. ASCOBAN/HELCOM small cetacean population structure workshop, 8-�0 October 2007, Bonn, Germany.

Pawliczka, J. 2009. Grey seal and harbour porpoise in Poland. Pages 241-260 in B. Bobek, J. Mikoś, and R. Wasilewski, editors. Management and conser-vation of wildlife in Eastern Pomerania-northern Poland. PTL-RDLP Gdańsk. [In Polish with Eng-lish summary.]

Rabies-Bulletin-Europe. 20�0. . Accessed � Feb 20�3.

Reijinders P.J.H, Abt K.F., Brasseur S.M.J.M.,Camhuysen K.C.J., Reineking B., Scheidat M., Siebert U., Stede M., Tougaard J., and Tougaard S; 2005. Marine Mammals. . Accessed � Feb 20�3.

Reljic, S., V. Kerezi, and D. Huber. 20�2. Hunting for bear sustainability in Croatia: an overview. Page 52 in Abstracts of the International Confer-ence on Hunting for Sustainability: Ecology, Eco-nomics and Society, 27-29 March 20�2, Ciudad Real, Spain.

Rodriguez-Teijero, J. D., F. Sandra-Palomera, J. Alves, Y. Bay, A. Beca, B. Blanchy, B. Borgogne, B. Bourgeon, P. Colaco, J. Gleize, A. Guerreiro, M. Maghnouj, C. Rieutort, D. Roux, and M. Puigcerver. 20�0. Monitoring and management of common quail Coturnix coturnix population in their Atlantic distribution area. Ardeola 57:�35-�44.

Salvatori, V., H. Okarma, O. Jonescu, Y. Dovhanych, and L. Boitani. 2002. Hunting legislation in the Carpathian Mountains: implications for the conser-vation and management of large carnivores. Wild-life Biology 8:3-�0.

Sarmento, P., J. Cruz, P. Monterosso, P. Tarroso, C. Ferreira, N. Negroes, and C. Eira. 2009. Status survey of the critically endangered Iberian lynx Lynx pardinus in Portugal. European Journal of Wildlife Research 55:247-253.

Sjoberg, M, M. A. Fedak, and B. J. McConnell. �995. Movements and diurnal behaviour patterns in a Baltic grey seal (Halichoerus greypus). Polar Biol-ogy �5:593-595.

�5


Sjoberg, M., and J. P. Ball. 2000. Grey seal, Hali-choerus greypus, habitat selection around haulout sites in the Baltic Sea: bathymetry and central-place foraging. Canadian Journal of Zoology 78:�66�-�667.

Skov, H., S. Heinanen, R. Zydelis, J. Bellebaun, Sz. Bzoma, M. Dagus, J. Durinck, S. Garthe, G. Ggrishanov, M. Hario, J. J. Kieckbusch, J. Kube, A. Kuresso, K. Larsson, L. Liugujoe, W. Meiss-ner, H. W. Nehls, L. Nilsson, J. K. Petersen, M. M. Roos, S. Pihl, N. Sonntag, A Stock, A. Stripniece, and J. Wahl. 20��. Waterbird popula-tions and pressures in the Baltic Sea. Nordic Coun-cil of Ministers, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Swenson, J. E., and J. Kindberg. 20��. The manage-ment and conservation of large carnivores in Swe-den and Norway. Scandinavian Brown Bear Re-search Project Report No. 20��-5, Orsa, Sweden.

Trinder, M. N., and J. Madsen. 2008. Predictive mod-eling of the Svabard pink-footed goose population: an evaluation of the potential impacts of increased hunting pressure. Vogelwelt �29:�58-�68.

Vargas, A., I. Sanchez, F. Martinez, A. Rivas, J. A. Godoy, E. Roldan, M. A. Simon, R. Serra, M. J. Perez, C. Ensenat, M. Delibes, M. Aymerich, A Silva, and U. Breitenmoser. 2008. The Iberian lynx Lynx pardinus Conservation Breeding Pro-gram. International Zoo Yearbook 42:�90-�98.

Vořišek, P., A. Klvaňova, S. Wotton, and R. D. Greg-ory R. D., editors. 2008. A best practice guide for wild bird monitoring schemes. European Bird Census Council, Třeboň, Czech Republic.

Zięba, F., and T. Zwijacz Kozica. 2004. Capy, kozy i koźlęta czyli prawie wszystko o kozicach. Tatrzański Park Narodowy. Zakopane 2004 [In Polish.]

�6


THE INSULARIZATION OF AMBOSELI NATIONAL PARK, KENYA

KAITLYN M. GAYNOR, Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Environmental Biology, Columbia University, 10th Floor Schermerhorn Extension, 1200 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, NY, 10027, USA; Email: [email protected]

SHEM M. MWASI, School for Field Studies, Center for Wildlife Management Studies, P.O. Box 27743-00506, Nairobi Kenya

MOSES M. OKELLO, School for Field Studies, Cen-ter for Wildlife Management Studies, P.O. Box 27743-00506, Nairobi Kenya

ABSTRACT: Large mammals in Amboseli National Park depend on neighboring Maasai group ranches for wet season dispersal. However, the expansion of hu-man infrastructure is reducing the size of wildlife dis-persal areas and leading to the insularization of the park, threatening local conservation. To determine the spa-tial distribution of human settlement, we collected GPS data and mapped all homes, roads, electric fences, ag-ricultural areas, and institutions in the �,307 km2 area surrounding Amboseli National Park. We recorded the closest distances at which wild large mammals were found from human infrastructure as an index of further wildlife displacement beyond the actual area of the in-frastructure. Human infrastructure occupied 6% of the area around the park, which increased four times to 24% when we accounted for the wildlife displacement radius around human structures. We identified 20 clusters of dense human activity by eye, which covered �7% of the study area. Though the majority of the land around Amboseli appears available to wildlife, the spatial lo-cation of these clusters restricts wildlife movement and threatens to insularize the park. Insularization should be urgently addressed through negotiated initiatives with the local community to safeguard Amboseli as a critical biodiversity conservation area for Kenya.

KEY WORDS: Amboseli National Park, corridors, dispersal areas, Global Positioning System (GPS), Geo-graphic Information System (GIS), insularization, Ke-nya.

Proceedings of the IVth International Wildlife Management Congress: 16-24, 2013

Dispersal areas and movement corridors are neces-sary for the survival of wildlife in protected areas. To maintain viable wildlife populations in small protected

areas, surrounding land must be accessible for forag-ing, mating, and breeding, or must provide wildlife with corridors that link suitable habitats (Newmark �993, Burkey �994, Wishitemi and Okello 2003). Wildlife may utilize unprotected dispersal areas when resources become scarce within protected primary habitat or sea-sonally available outside. Amboseli National Park is an important conservation area, supporting a high concen-tration of large mammals that attracts �40,000 tourists and brings in over �50 million Ksh (US$2 million) an-nually (Okello et al. 200�). During the dry season, wild large mammals rely on Amboseli’s swamps, which are fed by springs from Mt. Kilimanjaro and Chyulu Hills (Western �982). However, the park is too small (392 km2) to independently support all of the wildlife in the ecosystem year-round, and >70% of large mammals move into the adjacent Maasai group ranches in the wet season, when food resources become more widely avail-able (Western �982). Wildlife also travels through the group ranches to reach other protected areas such as Tsavo West National Park (Okello and Grasty 2008). However, the development of human structures and ac-tivities in the group ranches around Amboseli has led to the contraction of dispersal areas and the insularization of the park, threatening the future of wildlife biodiver-sity and conservation in the region. The Maasai group ranches are communally-owned areas of land used primarily for livestock grazing, and the traditional land tenure system of the pastoral Maa-sai allowed people, livestock, and wildlife to share the same landscape (Seno and Shaw 2002). Currently, most group ranches around Amboseli are undergoing subdivi-sion, in which individuals claim private ownership of small parcels of land to secure land from immigrants and the government and to engage in profitable endeavors such as land leasing, agriculture, and tourism (Seno and Shaw 2002, Campbell et al. 2003). The resulting human population growth and development have reduced avail-able wildlife habitat and contributed to human-wildlife

24

Figure 1.

Figure 1. The study area, located within the Amboseli ecosystem in southern Kenya.

�7

Gaynor et al. • Contraction of Migratory and Dispersal Areas

conflict (Okello and D’Amour 2008). A 33-year study of ecologically similar group ranches in southern Ke-nya found a decrease of wildlife populations following the subdivision of the Kaputei ranches and an increase in populations in the communally-owned Mbirikani Group Ranch (Western et al. 2009). Furthermore, overgrazing by Maasai livestock and intensive agriculture in semi-arid rangelands has depleted vegetation and water resources needed by wildlife (Okello and D’Amour 2008). Within the Mara-Serengeti ecosystem in Kenya, land cover change

due to human activities such as agriculture has led to a >50% decline in wildlife numbers over 20 years (Homewood 2004). Meanwhile, in the Tanzanian dis-persal areas of the Serengeti, land use change has been less widespread and confined to a smaller area, and wildlife numbers have remained constant (Serneels and Lambin 200�, Homewood 2004). Human infrastructure and mosaic land uses also restrict wildlife movement within the group ranches. Species that rely on seasonal migration may experience population decline, as in South Africa, where many

25

Figure 2

Figure 2. Location of human infrastructure in the study area around Amboseli National Park, inclusiveof wildlife displacement radius.

�8


protected areas have been insularized through fencing, and in the Tarangire region of Tanzania, where agri-culture has restricted ungulates to wet season ranges (Thirgood et al. 2004, Bolger et al. 2008, Voeten et al. 2009). In Tanzanian parks, small, insularized parks experienced an accelerated rate of large mammal ex-tinction compared to larger reserves (Newmark �996). Through insularization, Amboseli is in risk of becom-ing an ecological island (Okello and D’Amour 2008).With shifting land tenure and use around Amboseli National Park, the size and quality of wildlife disper-sal areas and movement corridors within the larger ecosystem is rapidly changing. However, there have been no baseline studies on human infrastructure in the dispersal areas, nor any recent evaluation and moni-toring of encroachment around the park. A greater understanding of wildlife distribution in relation to hu-man activities will provide insight into the status of the Maasai group ranches as dispersal areas for Amboseli, and identify present and future challenges for the con-servation of the park’s wildlife. The specific objectives of the study were to: (1) identify the location and extent of human infrastructure surrounding Amboseli National Park to determine how much space in the group ranches remains available for wildlife use; (2) determine the average minimum

distance wildlife kept away from each type of human structure as an index of wildlife displacement beyond the physical area of structures; (3) identify clusters of multiple human activities and examine their spatial lo-cation and orientation in relation to wildlife to deter-mine available corridors; and (4) elaborate a potential way forward for the viability of wildlife in the park and its dispersal areas.

STUDY AREAThe study area was part of the larger Amboseli ecosys-tem, which is approximately 5,000 km2 and includes the national park and 6 surrounding Maasai group ranches, in the Loitokitok District of southern Ke-nya. This work focused on the dispersal areas cover-ing �,307 km2 immediately around Amboseli National Park (Figure �). This area included Olgulului—Ololo-rashi Group Ranch (�,23� km2) and the western part of Kimana Group Ranch (75 km2). The study area consisted of semi-arid to arid pastoral land. Regional rainfall followed a seasonal pattern of short rains (October—December) and long rains (March—May). The study area received espe-cially low rainfall (≤500 mm annually; Ntiati 2002). The region also experienced some of the hottest tem-peratures in the district (30˚C). Although agriculture 19

Table 1. Total actual area and effective wildlife displacement area of all human infrastructure in

the study area around Amboseli National Park.

Infrastructure Type Actual area (km2, %

of study area)

Effective wildlife

displacement area

(km2, % of study area)

Magnification factor

Bomas 1 (0.1%) 127 (10%) 111

Roads 1 (0.1%) 69 (5%) 53

Electric Fences 19 (1%) 23 (2%) 1

Agriculture 28 (2%) 28 (2%) 1

Other Institutions 2 (0.1%) 37 (3%) 21

Total 78 (6%) 312 (24%) 4

�9

Gaynor et al. • Contraction of Migratory and Dispersal Areas

had spread widely in the group ranches, the dry area immediately around Amboseli was largely unaffected by changing land uses, and pastoralism remained the primary economic livelihood in the region (Campbell et al. 2003). The plant communities were dominated by Acacia-Commiphora bushland and open grassland (Githaiga et al. 2003). The amount of woodland cover was recently reduced due to bush encroachment and the expansion of agriculture (Campbell et al. 2003). Given saline sodic soil conditions and a shallow and unproductive Horizon A top soil, the shift from nomadic pastoralism to agriculture in the Loitokitok District led to severe rangeland degradation in the form of decreased plant productivity and increased erosion (McCabe 2003).

METHODSWe assessed human infrastructure and activities in the immediate Amboseli wildlife dispersal area in wet sea-sons (November 2008 and April 2009) when wildlife was dispersing from the park. A team of researchers covered the entire study area on foot. We used Glob-al Positioning System (GPS) units (GPSmap 76CSx, �999, Garmin, Olathe, KS) to determine the location of wild large mammals and human infrastructure in the group ranch, including bomas (i.e., Maasai home-steads), roads, and other institutions. We recorded GPS coordinates as well as shape and dimensions of each structure to calculate area. We defined bomas as homesteads erected for liv-ing purposes by Maasai people, consisting of housing units, a central livestock pen, and a fence of Acacia branches. We mapped all bomas within the study area (except those within the Namelok electric fence) and assessed the status of use as occupied (current resi-dents), unoccupied (in use seasonally but no current residents), abandoned (no longer in use), or new (re-cently completed or under construction, and not yet

inhabited). Within each boma, we recorded the total number of housing structures and the permanence of each structure, classified by dominant construction ma-terials: permanent (concrete foundations, metal roofs, wood or brick walls), semi-permanent (no foundation, metal roofs, mud or wood walls), temporary (no foun-dation, grass roofs, mud walls), or incomplete (in the process of being constructed). When mapping roads, we recorded GPS coordi-nates from a vehicle at every � km, with increased frequency when the road curved. We classified roads based on width as main (>8 m), major (2–8 m), or minor (500 m

21

Table 2. Area occupied by bomas.

Boma Status Total number

of bomas

Wildlife

displacement

distance (m)

(Mean ± SE)

Actual area

(km2, % of

study area)

Effective wildlife

displacement area

(km2, % of study

area)

Occupied 379 261 ± 24 0.8 (0.1%) 96 (7%)

Unoccupied 32 209 ± 30 0.1 (0.03%) 13 (3%)

Abandoned 79 101 ± 25 0.04 (0.01%) 1 (0.4%)

Unoccupied/

Abandoneda

(Olgulului section)

213 192 ± 18 0.3 (0.02%) 29 (2%)

New 26 120 0.03 (

20


did not affect wildlife location. Researchers walked to where wildlife was first seen and recorded GPS coor-dinates at the center of the group. We spatially analyzed GPS coordinates for bomas, roads, non-residential institutions, agriculture, and wildlife using maps with GIS. We mapped the perim-eter and calculated the area of each structure based on its measured dimensions and its GPS coordinates. To estimate the effective area occupied by human settle-ment and infrastructure, accounting for further wildlife displacement beyond the actual perimeter of structures, we added the average minimum distance that wildlife kept from each type of structure to the dimensions of each structure and recalculated area. The magnifica-tion factor for each type of structure was the ratio of the area inclusive of wildlife disp

ivth international wildlife management congress · 2019. 6. 3. · wildlife monographs: eric...

Documents